To understand the chronological
succession of product designs and technical improvements introduced in
the basic LEGO construction elements, they have to be considered in their
whole, as well as the causes (marketing targets or other) and eventually
the consequences of each step taken.

As a company that manufactured
plastic toys (the other branches are not relevant here), LEGO made periodical
investments in molds. New molds might be required because the old ones
were worn out, because it was necessary to increase the output, or because
of some former technical limitation that had to be overcome- these are
not always self-evident.

The full-bodied studs, for
instance, were incompatible with shorter injection cycles, because the
mold opened too soon and the stud body, still soft, would cause the surface
to cave-in. Thus, hollow studs became a must once new, faster, injection
equipment became available in the mid 1950s.

New molds were also required
for any new parts and components. Molds were machined in steel and then
hardened to increase their life. Once hardened, a reworking of the surface
would be very expensive; in some cases practically impossible.

This text proposes an approach
to the study of the early evolution of the LEGO bricks based in cycles
of innovation/investment, their presumed causes and verifiable consequences.
In particular we shall consider contemporary molds of the 2X4 and 2X2
brick types, the only ones to have been part of the original construction
system. Considering that each cycle has some technological markers, not
always apparent, when one of its products is dated, all molds pertaining
to the same investment cycle will, in all likelihood, be contemporary.
And thus a timeline of early LEGO development can be drawn.

During the 1930s several companies
manufactured construction toys based in bricks (of rubber, wood, ceramics...)
without particular success. Using a thermoset plastic, Page went a step
further- he developed a product that was light, attractively coloured,
and whose elements could lock one to the other through the elasticity
of the material. But many other companies would in time present similar
systems to the market and they came and went without people even remembering
their name today, including Kiddicraft whose main claim to fame is, ironically
and certainly unfairly, its role in the origin of LEGO. Would LEGO exist
if not for Kiddicraft? Probably not. Could Kiddicraft have become what
LEGO is today, if not for LEGO? Most certainly not!

So, LEGO invested in molds
and started injecting plastic in the shape of 2x4 and 2x2 slotted bricks
with full studs, one type of doors and three types of windows, all clones
of the Kiddicraft product. Because the slots were molded and not machine-cut
into the finished brick, the initial mold for the 2X4 brick manufactured
at least three double slotted bricks and two single slotted bricks in
each injection cycle, while the 2X2 mold manufactured at least two single
slotted and two double slotted bricks in each cycle, as can be seen from
the position of the pips and the ratio of brick types in an early box.
Those were 2X4vs01 and
2X2vs01.

At this point LEGO introduced
some creativity, not to the product, but to the packaging. The bricks
were manufactured in an attractive thermoset of striking colours and packed
in no less attractive boxes (good taste in packaging was a trademark of
LEGO) in a way
that used the contrasting colours of the bricks to the best advantage
(the system was so successful that it would be used for two decades).
Also they did not rely in card roofs as Kiddicraft, but expected users
to make roofs from the bricks themselves. BUT neither bricks or boxes
were marked with the LEGO logo, which is astonishing because the wooden
toys of that time were marked and LEGO seemed particularly proud of its
products. Can that be a consequence of the Kiddicraft connection and a
recognition that the product was not really their own? Or, more likely,
a decision to sell the toy as a "white product" that each major
outlet could mark with their own name ("GEAS" and "Primo"
were used in Sweden)? Or could the product be a joint-venture with another
company? I wonder... But either way it seemingly demonstrates that the
product was not considered promising enough to be worth of brand recognition
at all costs.

Some of the early bricks were
manufactured in an expensive plastic that shows marked transparency to
the light in any colour. Those bricks are very rare today, revealing small
runs.

The 2X4 ans 2X2 bricks were
of a considerable size and thus the construction scale of the model buildings
was rather large, with little detail. This was a toy for the very young.
The fact that it was a copy of a foreign patented system, limited the
market to Denmark, Scandinavia at best. Even so, in 1950 a new investment
was made in a mold to manufacture a thin baseplate
on which the brick foundations of a structure could be laid- another Hilary
Page idea patented in the United Kingdom. Initially, this baseplate still
had no LEGO logo printed anywhere. This was maybe the end of development
and was how the product was intended to remain...

1952/53

1952/53- In the market to
stay!

In 1952 or 1953 a decision
was taken to invest in the LEGO toy construction product. The decision
followed two lines: brand recognition- all products were marked
with "LEGO" in block letters (this called for new molds, even
for the brick types already produced and thus were introduced 2X4vs02
and 2X2vs02 - but seemingly
the old molds have not been retired at this time); and diversification-
2X3vs01 and 1X2vs01
bricks were introduced at this time and new slot arrangements were made
available to the 2X4 and 2X2 bricks, calling for more expensive molds.
A thicker, more stable baseplate (10X20vs02)
was also introduced at this time- it would constitute one of LEGO's mainstays
in the future. It too was marked "LEGO".

Actually LEGO was now so eager
to mark their products that some molds were remachined
to make the brand name more visible. This was a defensive measure against
manufacturers of cheaper lookalikes
of the non-patented LEGO bricks that had been selling in the Danish
market. The fact that the product had become a target for imitators
shows that sales had increased to a level that attracted competitors.

In this investment cycle, newly
designed boxes were also introduced.

The decisions taken at this
time did not cause a surge of the product itself - it remained basically
the same - but they are a statement that sales showed promise and the
producer decided that the construction toy was to stay in the market.

1954/55

1954/55- The LEGO System
i leg: in the market to win!

In 1954 started the investment
cycle that would be capital to LEGO. It started rather inauspiciously
with the introduction of the little-used 4X4 corner brick, the prone-to-bend
2X8, 2X10, 2X12 and 2X14 beams and the large and rather clumsy "windows
with glass".

A little remarked but highly
meaningful detail was the rethinking of the 700/ boxed sets. Until 1953
they were just an amassment of bricks and windows in up to five colours,
sold with a leaflet with loose construction
ideas, most of which required multiple boxes to be achievable. But
now the number of available colours started being reduced until only building-like
white and red would remain and each set now carried enough material for
a specific building, illustrated in the leaflet
that went in each box.

LEGO stylized its brand recognition
mark in 1954, introducing the so-called "dogbone logo" in its
bricks. All new molds were now machined to print the logo underneath the
brick. So were 2X4vs03, 2X2vs03, and the new thick 10X20 baseplate.

During 1954 the company thought
of a new side of the building toy that called for small bricks- this was
LEGO MOSAIK, a short-lived mosaic builder that relied on 1X1
round and square bricks as well as 1X2 square and round bricks (known
in the hobby as "macaroni"). The 1X1 bricks, that seemed yet
out of context in the frame of a system based on a 2X4 brick module, were
perfect for the Mosaik system. But they had to be branded to raise barriers
against likely competitors. They were too small to be branded in the
interior and the only part exposed in a built mosaic was the top and thus
they were the first parts to be marked on top their studs. At the
same time new molds were made so that the other bricks on which the Mosaik
system relied were also branded on the stud tops. These were 1X2vs03
and vs02 of the macaroni bricks.
The studs were still
full bodied, but new, presumably faster, injection machinery was now available
and seemingly it was used in the new 1X1square and 1X2vs03 bricks. But
the faster cycle brought a displeasing result: the stud surfaces caved
in and looked bad! Oh well, it had to do for now!

In 1955 the investment cycle
was beautifully completed and it should go in marketing manuals as one
of the most unexpected blueprints for success in the toy industry. LEGO
was building not a collection of brick types, as several other brands
had, but a whole play-system: on sale went the thin
plates, that could be used as both bases and elegant modernist roofs;
and low and elegant windows and doors, showing that the scale of the
system had changed- for all practical effects the 1X2 brick would henceforward
be the modular basis and thin-walled buildings could be convenient scaled
to the proportions of the 1:87 vehicles also being launched at the time;
and 1X6 and 1X8 beams, that served as lintels over the windows and aggregating
elements of the new walls. And it is revealing that the image of a growing
Kjeld Christiansen, one of the founder's grandchildren, could be used
over the years to illustrate LEGO boxed sets- the toy was growing with
him and being retargeted for the older child.

To complement the main elements,
and show that this was a true system, came supplements as a garage baseplate
and a garage door; trees and traffic signs, trucks...

But all this construction-toy
paraphernalia could not be conveniently sold in the large boxes of brick
assortments, neither could it be sold in units. And so LEGO developed
a scheme already tried with the windows: low cost, attractively designed,
numbered "matchboxes" in
which all accessories, as well as small quantities of bricks, could be
bought. These relatively inexpensive parts boxes, attractively displayed
in stands or rotators, became the ideal gift for a little boy to beg his
parents when the family went to the Magasins du Nord, or for a visiting
couple to soothe the dear children of the hosts. This was, to my knowledge,
a rather new concept in the field- one that would be copied by all competitors
- the sincerest recognition of an idea's worth.

But this was still not all
for this year of all years: LEGO launched two new concepts - the City
Plan, a plastic or cardboard plant with streets, grass spots and lots
where LEGO buildings could be placed to make up a whole neighbourhood;
and set boxes with all the material needed to construct a building to
fill a vacant lot. As we remarked above, the concept of a "building
in a box" had already been introduced for 1954 in the 700/ sets,
but now four of the small "matchbox" accessory sets allowed
the construction of so many miniature houses, with their own place in
the City Plan. And then there was the new (1236)
set, consisting of the full complement of material to build a garage (for
the Plan, of course).

This was LEGO's "System
i leg"- the "System in play", an integrated concept where
the building bricks were not the main product bur rather a piece of a
toy puzzle that would be constructed by the child to the limits of his
imagination and the means of his parents to increase the collection
of available bricks, vehicles and complementing items. Actually, many
a child wanted to have a full collection of supplemental boxes because
they made up a numbered array, irrespective of the utility of the contents...
I know because I was one of those children!

1956

1956- Rounding the edges
and picking the produce

Times must have been hectic
at LEGO in 1956. Now that they had a really promising product, it had
to be sold so as to get hold of a share of the market before competitors
could follow suit. In
1956 started the first export to non-Scandinavian countries (Germany and
Holland) and other interested partners started queuing, including a representative
in faraway Portugal. With the opening of the foreign markets, the sky
was the limit for LEGO if they played it right.

This was not a time for
substantial investment in new items- it was a time for devising new attractive
ways to offer the existing system and a time to solve technical problems,
albeit minor. The fulfillment of hopes in the foreign markets might depend
on it, especially in Germany where technically minded competitors might
explore the deficiencies of the system.

On the news side, 1956 saw
the introduction of a set (1310) in the spirit of the garage of 1955-
it was a beautiful Art Deco Esso Service Station including, this time,
bricks, accessories and a vehicle.

The expanding foreign markets
called for new molds to increase the output and it was the time to modernize
the System and correct the problems that limited the production speed.
A new set of molds was prepared and the bricks they produced were no longer
slotted. At the same time new doors and windows with studs were introduced,
that improved the system- now these elements were no more than shaped
bricks. Thus came to be 1X2vs04, 2X2vs04, 2X3vs05 and 2X4vs04. They
all had in common the hollowing of the studs by a circa 3mm cylindrical
opening that avoided the caving-in of the surface in fast cycles.
At the same time the 2X4, 2X3 and 2X4 bricks had the LEGO logo marked
on the studs, as had the 1X2 and 1X1 back in 1954/55.

1958

1958- Killing two birds
with the same stone

But there was a more grievous
issue with the LEGO system, which the 1956 versions, very rigid and with
a tendency to warp, had only more plainly brought to attention. And that
was the lack of a wholly positive connection between bricks - very
often connected bricks only stayed united by gravity or after a thin plate
effectively "closed" the top of the structure, making it rigid.
Solution: design of tubular connectors for the 2X4, 2X3 and 2X2
bricks where the problem was more acute and easier to tackle. LEGO developed
a tubular connector that solved the problem and versions 2X4vs05, 2X3vs06
and 2X2vs05 substituted the versions of only a year ago in the esteemed
foreign markets, while apparently the remaining stocks were drained by
the home market.

But the introduction of the
tubular connectors was much more relevant than just solving a problem.
Actually the patent for the positive connection of plastic toy bricks,
a world-first, would both liberate LEGO from the ever-present ghost of
its Kiddicraft ancestry, and provide a legal ground in the future for
shooing competitors with the perspective of a patent infringement lawsuit.

ca 1960

ca 1960 This time we'll
do it right!

A small problem was corrected
in the next molding cycle- and it is well because it allows for a simple
way to date bricks. The original 3mm stud hollow proved too large and
the stud wall ended up being too thin for a brand that aimed at perfection.
In some bricks stud walls are sometimes found broken, others may break
when played rough. But most important and unapparent to buyers, factory
rejects were probably much higher than need be.

When the time came to prepare
new molds, the hollow was decreased to circa 2mm and the bricks are clearly
distinguishable.

For 2X4 and 2X2, the two brick
types that carried the brand colours from the onset (even when they did
not actually carry its name) this was the sixth version; for LEGO this
was also the sixth mold investment cycle; for me this is the end of the
timeline.